손해배상(기)
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: the "E" of the first instance judgment No. 4, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 3
[However, the co-defendant A (hereinafter referred to as the "A") of the first instance court determined separately.
2. Additional Judgment
A. As to Defendant C’s assertion, Defendant C received 60 million won of the instant loan granted by the said Defendant as part of the deposit under the above lease agreement after concluding a lease agreement with Defendant C with the said Defendant on the instant loan No. 202, on the grounds that the said lease agreement was cancelled upon Party A’s request and the said money was returned to A. Therefore, Defendant C did not compensate the Plaintiff who subrogated for the instant loan obligation.
Therefore, in addition to the overall purport of pleadings in the Health Team, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 7-2, Eul evidence 7-2, and Eul evidence 2, the defendant C prepared a false lease agreement with the above contents for the crime of fraud of the loan of this case even though it did not intend to actually lease the above 202, which was owned by the defendant C, and thereafter Gap deposited 60 million won borrowed from the bank in the name of the deposit of the loan of this case into the defendant C account on March 2, 2012, and the defendant C immediately remitted the above money to A account, and as long as it can be acknowledged that the defendant C was convicted of criminal punishment on the ground that he participated in the loan of this case of this case by the defendant C, etc., even if there was no economic benefit acquired by the above crime, the defendant C participated in the crime of fraud of this case by the loan of this case.